Add a Review

  • We in the United States like to believe that we reside in a country without royalty and nobility. The only people who think that there is true egalitarianism have never worked in the Entertainment and Media Industries. There is an aristocratic elite, no question, and it is not exactly made up of politicians (although there are some). It is largely composed of those who control media, particularly in television, film, radio, music, fashion, and print. They control what get's seen and what doesn't. When these people put on huge events that involve the press, cameras, and limousines, the public comes out to pay unquestioned homage to these elites, often on the sideline behind a barricade. With cameras flashing, these people are treated like the royalty of the 17th and 18th centuries. "The Devil Wears Prada" examines what is like to be in the inner circle of one of these elites.

    In addition to the public's clamoring to glimpse these powerful elites, another segment of the population desires to become one of these people by trying to "break into" the media business. Since there are many more people who dream of being in these circles than there are spots available, this gives enormous power to those already on the inside, particularly those who have sway to either make or break an up-and-coming career. "The Devil Wears Prada" chronicles an aspiring journalist who lands a dream job that, she is told, "thousands would kill for": being the personal assistant to the editor of one of the largest fashion magazines, Runway, whose editor-in-chief makes Bill Gates seem like a softy. The character, Miranda Priestly (played by Meryl Streep in a tour-de-force Oscar-nominated performance) is in fact modeled after real-life Vogue Magazine editor Anna Wintour whose chilling detachment from those around her, her ability to make or break fashion careers, and her cut-throat demands on her staff have become legendary throughout the fashion world.

    In the film, the corporation that is "Runway" is no democracy. It is feudalism, with Mirander the absolute queen ruling over her dominion of serfs who constantly scatter about trying to please her. The central character, Andy Sachs, is plunged into this Madison Avenue purgatory without knowing the rules of the game. A journalism-major from Northwestern, Andy knows next to nothing about the fashion world, but it's not just the fashion world--it's the world of the elite in New York. Since everyone wants to gain favor from the higher-ups in order to step up the ladder, there's often over-the-top deference to those in elite positions. I half-expected her female assistants to curtsy when Mirander entered the office. Mirander knows perfectly-well her status and she uses it, often flaunts it, to her advantage. Her staff run around like castle servants anticipating the arrival of the Lady of the Manor.

    Streep is magnificent as her voice never reaches past mezzo-piano. When one of her staff has transgressed, or simply cannot fulfill her expectation (I doubt Superman could hold a job there), in the softest tone possible she expresses her disappointment. And yet, the anticipation of her negative reaction is what makes for moments of anti-gravitational intensity. Of course, she never compliments anyone when they've done well. Excellent performance is taken for granted in this kingdom. I've never found the raging tyrant frightening. Rather, it is the even-tempered soft-spoken empress with absolute power who sends anyone who to displeases her to the block with a disinterested wave of the figure that is the most terrifying.

    At one point in the film, Andy chuckles when Miranda fusses over some seemingly identical-looking belts which of course spawns a lecture about how Andy's current wardrobe was in fact created by the fashion elite. This does point to another side of the fashion facade which I think may be the point of the film. If you take away the cameras, the celebrities, the allure, the models posing in museums wearing the latest by Christian Dior, at the end of the day all this is about is just jackets, belts, purses, skirts, dresses, and pants. I think one of the characters says as much. These clothes may look wonderful, even stunning, but that's all they are. They are lifeless pieces of fabric cut in a certain way to make the wearer look appealing but that's all it is. The fashion industry of course needs to perpetuate the idea that clothing is much more than clothing: that beautiful fashions will create fairy-tale existences for the purchasers. They are meant to represent a life of luxury and splendor and the purchase of these articles will bring you closer to that reality. When it doesn't, you need to buy more of these clothes. And you need to read Runway (aka Vogue) to tell you what you should buy. Of course, the only ones who actually have these fairy tale existences are the ones providing the clothes. Most of the people buying these fashions are still behind the barricade. Is there an irony here?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It's a comfort movie to me that I love to rewatch. All the actors were amazing and it's just a fun, feel-good story. The only thing I have with this is why the main character had to loose weight when she was already pretty skinny, but okay, it was the 00's obsession with skinniness I guess.

    Also, the true villains in this movie were the boyfriend and her friends, she was finally doing something she loves and they were hating on her for being successful. Okay, she was super busy and she missed a few social things, but when she started they already knew it was going to be a taxing job. And she only wanted to do it for a year so that after that she could have her pick at any other job. Truly they were holding her back and not celebrating her....
  • Unmissable for Meryl Streep fans. She plays second fiddle to Anne Hathaway here - screen time wise, otherwise she's the whole bloody orchestra. She's the one reason to see the film and that in itself is one hell of a reason. Meryl Streep is fearless and part of the joy of going to see her films is that we know for a fact that she's going to dare and dare and dare. From Sophie's Choice and A Cry in The Dark to Death Becomes Her and Plenty. Here the story is as unbearable as most TV commercials but she, Meryl/Miranda transforms it into something else. We connect with her evil queen because her evil queen is much more real, much more human than anybody else on the screen. Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci are fun but they're in the periphery of a story that's so wafer thing they can't really move to the center. Anne Hathaway is kind of invisible and her character only changes costumes and make up. There is no real tangible growth. Now that I got that out of my system. Go see Meryl be Miranda. You'll have a lot of fun.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Really good but when re-watching again here in 2021 the boyfriend who won't even allow his girlfriend 9 months of career advancing super hard work without bashing her down so much by saying she has no integrity anymore - which she totally does - is just hard to watch. Less mean boyfriend wrapped up in a non threatening "cutie" next time please. He is a total a**hole and is using psychological manupulation to get her to drop the job. He is in reality really mean to her. If she does not do what he wants there will be hell to pay. Andy is just to nice and underdog'y.
  • lsalsa2915 January 2021
    Warning: Spoilers
    Her boyfriend is so sexist, boring and a wet blanket
  • The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

    There are four and a half major stars here, and any part of this movie with any of them is really fabulous. I'm talking Streep of course, and Hathaway who has the main role. Add Tucci who is terrific (as always) and Blunt who is also terrific (as always) and you have he makings of a terrific movie.

    So why the downer reviews and semi-dud status? I don't know, except the other parts without any of these, or with just Hathaway and her friends (her peers including her cute but dull boyfriend) are really dull stuff. This is partly the actors and partly the writing, which is truly filler. I can see some people grabbing their remotes at these points.

    But let's get to the crux of the movie, which is actually pretty great fun. The parade of great fashion that whizzes by, the haughty power queen that Streep pulls off with such panache, the steady dribble of insults coming from Blunt's mouth, and the transformation of Hathaway, over and over, as she moves her way into this world are all really dazzling. It's a fairy tale with its feet firmly on the ground--but what odd, worldly, glitzed up ground to be standing on.

    There are no depths here, just light romantic comedy. It's a situation many of us know--either by having to look good, or by having an impossible boss, or just seeing a relationship dissolve as you move on in your goals and maturity. Between the dreck there is a mostly wonderful idea made into an intermittently wonderful film.
  • nkishudak2 November 2020
    There's absolutely no chemistry between Anne and Adrian. How the hell did they cast him for this role?! Everyone else is brilliant. Classic fun, love this movie.
  • Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) is a recent journalism graduate hoping for a job at an important news outlet. She gets hired by the ruthless Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) editor of Runway fashion magazine. Only she feels the magazine is beneath her high minded journalism. Emily Blunt plays Miranda's long suffering assistant, and Stanley Tucci plays her longtime second in command.

    Of course Andy learns some lessons, grows in character, and faces a choice. The story is pretty standard loosely based on Anna Wintour editor of Vogue. The big plus is the great performances from all three ladies. Emily Blunt is funny. Meryl Streep nails her performance. And Anne Hathaway is great at holding the screen with these powerful performances.
  • I had been told that Merryl Streep is great in this movie but the movie isn't really very good, so I went in with very low expectations. Maybe that was good: I really liked "The Devil Wears Prada" a lot.

    Maybe I liked it because of two things I had in common with Andy: first, I have had the experience of starting a new job with only the vaguest idea of what I was supposed to do (and how to do it) and finding that everyone expected me to perform competently, without any training or help, right away. Second, I have had a boss (female) who was so difficult to please and so willing to tell her underlings how stupid they were that several quit without even waiting until they could find other jobs. In other words, I could really relate to Andy's situation. Stuff like that actually does happen in the real world. Perhaps, that is the reason that I was possibly the only person in the theater who was hoping Andy would not make the choice she made.

    One thing that Miranda Priestley (Merryl Streep) had going that my Boss From Hell did not was class. It would have been very easy to create Miranda as a monster, but, wisely and skillfully, Merryl Streep allowed her to have a dignity and intelligence that made her seem to be demanding but not sadistic.

    Stanley Tucci is superb as Nigel, the ambitious, hard working man who dreams of having a position of power like Miranda's some day.

    "The Devil Wears Prada" is a very funny movie that is not as far divorced from the real world as, I believe, the producers of this movie may have thought.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This could have been a good movie if it didn't have so much that didn't make sense.

    When Andy has become comfortable in her new job, she is handing out gifts to all her friends, and they love it. Then all of a sudden, for no reason we ever see, they complain that she "isn't the same old Andy." Just because she is working hard? We never see any evidence of her being anyone different than she was at the beginning. She misses her boyfriend's birthday party because she had to work late? That doesn't mean she's a bad person. And she shows that she's sorry in a very sweet way. But I guess we're supposed to hate her now.

    Then one of her girlfriends sees this high-power writer guy make a pass at her, which she quickly snubs. But the friend acts like Andy was into it, reminds her about her boyfriend, and walks off in a huff. It makes no sense--Andy clearly was not into the guy, but her friend acts like she was. Then the way Andy just completely disses Miranda at the end, after they have come to mean something to each other, would have only made sense in the middle of the movie. Here, it comes off as just a convenient--but illogical--way to end the show. Then boyfriend Nate takes her back, despite the fact that they have two new jobs in two different cities; how they are going to stay together isn't even brought up.

    Speaking of Nate, he seems like an understanding, regular guy, the kind who would support his girlfriend in whatever she wanted to do. Working like hell in your first job in New York City? It's an incredible opportunity; no way would his character suddenly decide that her career was more important than him. Of course, it probably was just a plot device to make it okay for Andy to fool around with that writer without any guilt, and this tete-a-tete sets up a twist near the end.

    This movie seems to want to be an insider's look at the rough-and-tumble world of fashion; I found it unbelievable. Not that I don't believe you have to work for demanding bosses and cut down the number of personal hours in your life; but to think that your friends would abandon you because you're pursuing a dream doesn't ring true. And there is the crux of the problem: are we supposed to be angry with Andy, or Miranda, or the seemingly inhuman fashion world? We're never given a consistent sense of who's the villain here.

    In the end, the most unbelievable thing for me about this movie was how Andy was deemed "fat" by the fashion world. Come on; nobody would ever consider Anne Hathaway fat; not even the Devil.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Devil Wears Prada struck me much like the industry that provides its backdrop – pure surface, well promoted and unabashedly convinced of its own importance. If this was in fact the point of the piece, it is an absolute success. Otherwise, this highly-publicized film is painfully predictable and merely another incarnation of a plug-in script whose story arc has been traversed over and over . . . and over.

    Let's see, it goes something like this; basically decent, idealistic, young (man/woman) goes to (New York/Chicago/Los Angeles/D.C.) to make his/her mark in (writing/business/music/acting/government) only to be temporarily seduced by the very environment/person they are the antithesis of, alienating his/her(boyfriend/girlfriend/family/friends/all of the above) in the process until he/she stumbles on to the revelation, "To thine own self be true." Devil is all of this. . . again. Only the trendy names being dropped have been updated for those who find that sort of thing significant enough to make them believe this is somehow a different story.

    The characters, as written, are equally as plugged-in and predictable. The film is only watchable because of the efforts of three actors. Streep is superb -- as always -- as Miranda Priestly, the self-absorbed, career-obsessed and patently unpleasant publishing mogul. Every incredulous look and pursed lip is right on the mark. She is not however, showing us anything we haven't been shown before – either about her acting or about women at the top. Even Miranda's obligatory "vulnerability scene" is thin and comes too late in the film to matter. By the time we witness what angst she is capable of, we really don't care. We are left with less a feeling of empathy than a sense of justice. (If you want to see her be truly chilling and ruthless, check out the remake of Mancherian Candidate.)

    Likewise, Emily Blunt, as Miranda's first assistant, does a wonderful job as an insecure, over compensating slave to someone else's expectation. Her portrayal is cattily on target and provides the requisite foil to our heroine's wide-eyed innocence. Performance-wise this is commendable, but it leaves the audience with next to nothing to like about her character. The dilemma here is that the film presents her (as well as the character of Miranda) in such a way that we have this nagging feeling maybe we are supposed to like her in some way – and yet, we don't. This creates even more of a dilemma later on when Andrea – our supposedly intelligent, perceptive and grounded protagonist, played forgettably by Anne Hathaway-- makes attempts to befriend these two soulless women. Many are left to perceive her gestures as a weak and irritating need to be liked rather than any real nobility of character.

    The one true bright spot of the film is Stanley Tucci, as Nigel, who once again seems to infuse a refreshing dimension and humanity to a character that was probably not written that way. He continues to amaze.

    Cinematically, The Devil was a small-screen script seemingly shot for the small screen. It no doubt will look stunning when it reaches HBO to be embraced by all those starving fans of Sex in the City and many others who believe that haute couture must surely be the apex of man's cultural accomplishments and that watching insensitive, catty women snipe at each other is actually entertaining.

    Billed as a "comedy/drama," the film was never very touching and only mildly amusing. There were no new insights or honest laughs -- the kind you share with friends about the mutually-experienced absurdities of life. No. The audience responses were more like those sophisticated, obligatory snickers that you exchange over lattes with people you don't really know that well -- and are reasonably certain you wouldn't want to spend time with again.
  • eleanoremearns4 March 2022
    This movie should be on the top 250. It's original, influential, and stands the test of time. Underrated imo due to the female fan base and mid soundtrack. But the plot is powerful and the outfits are iconic.
  • No! Miranda Pristley can say it or merely breath it and the refusal comes as a devastating blow to her eager bunch of minions . Those moments were my favorites in a film that promises a hearty meal but delivers a frustrating bland soufflé. Meryl Streep however, makes it palatable and some times right down delicious. Anne Hathaway , so good in "Brokeback Mountain", is so uninteresting here that she manages to survive only when she's sharing the frame with Meryl Streep and that's because we're not looking at her. How can the fairy tale be so uneven, how can we possibly root for the evil stepmother rather than Cinderella. That seems a miscalculation of enormous proportions. All in all I could actually seat through the whole thing again just to see Meryl/Miranda purse her lips.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    They're really mean! They play keep-away with Andy's phone just after she's given them presents worth five figures. Plus her boyfriend is completely judgy about her job, when she has one of the coolest jobs possible. The magazine (really Vogue) was at the center of our culture back then, and the movie looks down its nose at it. Plus now I can't stand watching Meryl Streep, knowing that she was best buds with Harvey Weinstein. Okay, that's everything I hate about it. The fashions are still gorgeous, and Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci are fantastic. It's fun to step inside that glamorous world that doesn't exist anymore.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Having read Lauren Weisberger's novel when it first came out, didn't leave this viewer with a desire for watching the movie version of this tale of the people in the trendy media business that creates such a need for certain section of the population to run and buy all the latest designers' creations. One must say, that when the offer to borrow the DVD, presented an opportunity to compare the book with what comes out in the film.

    David Frankel follows the screen play that was put together by Ms. Weisberger and Aline Brosh McKenna, and keeps the essence of the book much intact. The finished product will baffle people outside the realm of fashion since it capitalizes on name dropping and inside jokes. The idea of a powerful woman, who is so self centered, she forgets what reality is like, shows us a world in which the idea of having the latest gives a person some value in life just by wearing what's in vogue at the moment.

    Meryl Streep is basically the whole reason for watching the film. As the tyrannical Miranda Priestly, she is worth the price of admission, or rental. Ms. Streep never raises her voice in order to get her point across. Her Miranda shows a cruelty beyond belief, yet, her own life is a mess. Miranda would be the last person to be a role model to imitate. Miranda is basically a self-made woman who probably came out of the same background of the young assistants she loves to terrorize, belittle and make them feel inadequate. Miranda can dictate to others, but she can't do anything to save her own marriage.

    Anne Hathaway surprises in her role of Andy Sachs. Never has she been so beautifully presented in any film she has appeared. She seems to be a natural who carries herself well against the rest of the people in the magazine. Emily Blunt is another asset. Stanley Tucci, Simon Baker, and the rest of the cast do a good job for the director.
  • I got a chance to see a sneak preview, and it was better than expected. First, I have to say that I've never read the book. My friend who saw it with me read it, and she said that the movie was pretty faithful to the book.

    The movie stars Anne Hathaway, a writer who winds up applying for, and getting the second assistant position to the Editor-in-Chief of THE fashion magazine called "Runway." Her boss is played by the always fantastic Meryl Streep. While she gets less screen time in the movie, her mean looks and bitchy attitude makes her character stick with you. Also, the movie does give you some soft moments to make her a little more sympathetic than she was portrayed in the novel (or so my friend told me). I do wonder whether or not this movie would've worked if Meryl's character was male instead of female.

    I won't bore you with the other plot details because it was actually fun to not know how it unravels. Without the novel to go by, it was fun to figure out what bad thing was going to happen to her next. I do have to say that the movie has achieved the balance of being cute but not corny. You also get to understand why she just takes it all instead of just quitting to begin with. It's funny enough to make you laugh out loud, but more importantly, it's a great film to escape to. Hey, at least for the majority of us, we can come out of the theater and say, "At least my boss isn't like that."
  • With dialog that absolutely crackles, "The Devil Wears Prada" is bound to please most audiences but will primarily appeal to the MTV generation, I suspect. When all is said and done, it's your typical fish-out-of-water, bright-lights-big-city fable, just dressed up all purdy.

    Or, put another way, it's essentially "The Princess Diaries" with much, much, muuuuuuuuuch better dialog and a slightly more sophisticated and dramatic story arc.

    So while older audiences may feel the film is a bit formulaic, the hysterical, but occasional cruel, one-liners and zingers hurled at Anne Hathaway's Andy are sure to keep them entertained. Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt get most of the barbs, and Blunt in particular is fantastic in the film.

    Tucci and Meryl Streep, however, get to make the most provocative and stirring speeches in the film, and they deliver. Hathaway capably carried the movie, perhaps overacting, but she makes it work. Streep proves again that she's a gifted comedian. Emily Blunt, as Emily, is pitch perfect, and her performance here gives beautiful irony to her given name.

    The film is just too long, however, primarily because the director feels obliged to explain everything -- every plot point is rendered obviously and painfully clear, and nothing left open for interpretation. That said, we're spared the "perfect ending" and left with a heroine who can truly stand on her own two feet, and in any shoes she might desire.
  • This is a glossy and mostly entertaining film, if a little shallow in terms of story and depth. However, there is a well-written script, that sometimes borders toward predictability, and nice camera-work, not to mention the fashionable costumes. The film's main merit is the performance of Meryl Streep, who rarely disappoints in anything she's in. Here she seems to be relishing the role of the hard-to-please Melinda Priestly. Anne Hathaway of Princess Diaries fame, is very charming and suitably dorky as Andrea Sachs, though I will say her clothes at the beginning of the film were hideous. There is also scene stealing support from Emily Blunt, who delights in making catty remarks throughout the film, and Stanley Tucci, who helps transform Andrea from her former self. One may question whether the film is too long, but it's very fast-paced, so I didn't have a problem with the length. The few criticisms I had with the Devil Wears Prada, is the predictability of the story, and sometimes the lack of depth. Overall, an 8/10 Bethany Cox.
  • Phil Spector invented modern pop music. Oh, some elements shift from time to time and different performer types are selected to posture in front. But the basic formula is one of filling all the holes. He called it "wall of sound," but Eric Clapton popularized the notion that the lead defines "holes" and its the job of the producer to fill them all.

    It has to do with some hardwired notion of richness in the way we perceive things. My own theory is that usually we encounter things that to be understood have to be placed in some sort of context. We have to provide that context by being whole beings who have our own world and understand it. But we don't, usually. We're incomplete, lazy about this. We want prefabricated worlds to provide context and eliminate ambiguities.

    That's why we prefer it when an object comes with its own context, like in pop music where there is no vacuum for us to use. Fashion is the same way: there's some sort of bold statement, but it only works if all the holes are filled with accompanying items and attitudes.

    And its the same with movies. If you want a movie to be popular, to sit well in the popular eye, you need to make it lush in the small. This project shows signs that it is carefully produced in this way. Look at what happens in the backgrounds: colors, energy, motion. Look at what happens in the blocking: compound events conflated. Look at even the simple setup where a friend sees our young heroine flirt with a suitor. There's a huge amount of attention paid to the environment and the people which surround her.

    A Paris street walk is another very fine example.

    It isn't as valuable as what I usually look for: actual cinematic art. This is more craft, stagecraft. But it is well enough done to be admired. And entirely apt for a story about an industry that does the same thing.

    +++++

    There are essentially four characters in this. The boss, our young writer, the "first assistant" who is placed in between in several ways, and the gay (we infer) fashion expert who is placed in between in other ways.

    Part of the richness is that each of these is fuller than the usual "lesson" movie would have. All four are compelling performances. But if you haven't yet seen this, I'd like you to pay particular attention to Emily Blount. She's the number 1 assistant.

    You've probably seen her before in the very special "My Summer of Love," something human about love and seductions. I think she's a real talent, something different than the others. Oh, they're very good at what they do, finding the right notes. But this woman has something else, something more visceral.

    You see, you can dance your own context into this and turn it from something that has no room for you. Try it by following the Emily Blount character, whose name is also Emily. (Hathaway's character is the "new Emily.")

    +++++

    The moral issue we are meant to capture is more sophisticated than usual, too. Streep's character isn't a devil at all. She isn't quite a useful person in the manner that she actually creates. She doesn't make anything. She doesn't create or design or do anything normally considered the root of the food chain in term of value.

    She's part journalist, a sort of elevated, influential journalism that Anne's character doesn't have the horsepower to accept. She's also an arbiter of what matters. Its not a new notion, that some journalists create the world they present, and make it seem real by absolute consistency and projected confidence. Its what politics is. Fashion and politics, religion.

    That final challenge, about whether our young journalist will follow what she sees as the devil, that final challenge is more complex than it seems. And though this is a mainstream movie, part of the enrichment is that they didn't tone it down. And they left us with the conclusion that the girl left and wrote the story we see, one which casts the successful worldbuilder as the devil.

    ++++

    Speaking about worldbuilders and fashion. To appreciate this movie, you must see the one on which it relies, "Funny Face." Audrey Hepburn, with the smile that Hathaway mines. Similar situation: fashion, clunky girl becomes fashionably adept, conflict between the "real" and pretend (in that case, philosophy). A trip to Paris — some of the very same establishing shots in fact. An ambiguous resolution that in Hepburn's case involved photography instead of writing.

    That movie made Jackie Kennedy possible, which made Jack Kennedy president, and from there, another "wall of sound" that built a reality, incidentally concurrent with the rise of Phil Spector...

    Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
  • The Devil Wears Prada finds an eager young journalism major Anne Hathaway starting a new job at the fashion industry magazine Runway. She's got the writing credentials, but experience in the industry not a bit. Which is going to be tough because she will be working for Meryl Streep a queenpin of the fashion industry. She's a tough and exacting and demanding supervisor and can't seem to keep good help.

    Watching Streep as Miranda Priestley I was reminded about how law clerks worked that way for William O. Douglas on the Supreme Court. He went through them like tissue paper he was that demanding. A brilliant jurist not a very nice man.

    Anne Hathaway ever since she was a Disney princess seems always to be cast as sunny, upbeat characters and the casting suits her well. Streep really puts her through the ringer. But the girl had grit.

    Streep's a survivor, she's tough in a tough business. One wonders when she was up and coming herself what she might have gone through that make her the way she is.

    Hathaway's also got relationship problems with her boyfriend Adrian Greiner who is trying to make it in another tough business, cooking. Hathaway temporarily falls for the charming fashion designer Simon Baker on a quick trip to Paris with Streep.

    The Devil Wears Prada got two Oscar nominations, one of the many for Meryl Streep as Best Actress and one for costume design. As this is a film about the fashion industry that would almost seem a requirement.

    Fans of Meryl Streep will enjoy this one. You might try viewing this back to back with the Susan Hayward classic I Can Get It For You Wholesale. That film will give you an idea where Streep might have originated from.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Even though she portrayed variations of the same demonic character in 1989's "She-Devil" and 1992's "Death Becomes Her", Meryl Streep truly nails it in this smart, creative 2006 comedy by underplaying the role and saving her verbal talons for pivotal moments. As Miranda Priestly, the despotic editor-in-chief of Runway magazine, Streep simply singes the screen every time she appears with her perfectly upswept hair; arrogant couture opinions and frequently unreasonable demands on her staff.

    Fortunately, director David Frankel has come along well since his 1995 Woody Allen knockoff, the irritatingly unctuous "Miami Rhapsody", and one can see his progression in his smart work on episodes of "Sex in the City" and "Entourage". He moves the film at such a sharp, fast clip that it feels like an accurately frenzied portrayal of the inner workings of the world of haute couture. The one-line zingers also come fast and furious thanks to Aline Brosh McKenna's deep-dish script based on Lauren Weisberger's best-selling novel, but the vitriol does not come at the expense of character development and a shrewdly observed storyline about all-or-nothing careers when working for media royals and courtiers.

    The plot's protagonist is not Priestly but Andy Sachs, a young idealist and aspiring journalist who just graduated from Northwestern. Even though she has no interest in fashion, she lands an interview at Runway. Because she is not a typically bootlicking, anorexic fashionista toady, Priestly hires her as her second assistant. It becomes a nightmarish trial by fire, as Andy slowly earns the trust of Priestly much to the chagrin of the haughty first assistant Emily. And despite the derision of her circle of friends, including her live-in boyfriend, Sachs starts to respect Priestly's style and power, which leads to the decision to have Andy go to Paris for Fashion Week. Further complications ensue when a hotshot writer takes an interest in her and a power struggle erupts at Runway.

    It really takes someone of Streep's caliber to pull off the impossible character of Priestly because when she does have a moment of vulnerability, it resonates so much more than it should. Although she is far too pretty to be considered frumpy by anyone's standards, the naturally likable Anne Hathaway plays Sachs serviceably and looks sensational in a series of Chanel outfits. She brings the necessary heart to the story, even though the character arc is rather predictable. It does seem a shame that we are supposed to cheer the character's reduction from size 6 to 4, but that is probably as accurate as anything else in the film.

    There is terrific work from the reliable Stanley Tucci as Nigel, Runway's no-nonsense fashion director, especially as he patiently works under Priestly's shadow and gives Sachs hard-to-take survival advice, and from Emily Blunt, who plays first assistant Emily with the ideal combination of vitriol and desperation. Overly metrosexualized with the strangest blond eyebrows I have ever seen, Simon Baker lends an appropriately smarmy edge to his writer Christian Thompson. Far less interesting are Sachs' judgmental friends, in particular Adrian Granier as Sachs' sous-chef boyfriend and Tracie Thoms as art gallery owner Lilly. The ending is inevitable, but it moves in a creative way that makes neither Sachs overly heroic nor Priestly absolutely villainous. This is solid entertainment elevated by the artistry of Streep.
  • My daughter read the book and wanted me to go see the movie with her. I was truly entertained by all of the back-biting and bitching that went on at "Runway" magazine, which is helmed by the inimitable Meryl Streep. She puts the 'itch' in bitch. You wait on tenterhooks for her to devour demure, clueless little Anne Hathaway. Keep waiting. All the while their little dance of death is going on, there is Stanley Tucci in the background, chewing up the scenery. He plays Fairy Godmother to Anne's Cinderella and it is a scene that would make any girl's heart go pitter-pat. All those designer close being thrown about, and the JIMMY CHOOS!!!! If you're going to see the clothes, you will be happy. If you are going to see Meryl act like a bitch, you will be happy. But go to see Stanley Tucci; he is poetry in motion, dressed to the nines (especially in his plaid suit), and as bitchy and gossipy as any old queen!! Plus seeing New York in all of its glory is always a treat. This was a great movie. I highly recommend it to: 20-30something women, gay men, anyone who loves anything Meryl Streep does, and those Stanley Tucci fans out there (and you know who you are!!).

    Enjoy!!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm not a girl, so I knew next to nothing about Anne Hathaway, I went to see Meryl Streep and oh boy, did I see her. An inedited Meryl Streep, far, far away from anything she has ever done and that is saying something, isn't it? Blazing with self confidence, Miranda Pristley is a monumental modern queen. Hints of human trouble at her own personal castle doesn't disturb that imperious facade and her extraordinary talent to say "No" I may be totally out of touch but I just wanted Anne Hathaway out of the way. It bother me so much. I longed for the young Julie Christie in that role. The Christie of "Darling" can you imagine? Then yes you have a battle of the titans not a predictable, tired, phony fairy tale. When Hathaway's boyfriend tells her "You have become one of them" I wanted to shoot myself because that's obviously what was suppose to happen but other than different outfits and make up I saw no difference in the girl. I enjoyed very much Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt's performance and I'm recommending the film just to witness Meryl Streep, the greatest actress of our or any generation, dazzles us with an extraordinary new face.
  • ... in an otherwise forgettable fluff of a film that remains afloat, but falls apart a little due to morals and messages. There has certainly been buzz surrounding Meryl Streep's devilishly delicious performance as the cold Prada editor, and rightly so, for she does a fine job, capturing the tingling sarcasm in her character's voice, the pursing of her lips and the icy chill in her voice. She perfectly gets her bitch on. However let me debunk the myth that 'The Devil Wears Prada' is exclusively Streep's show: Hathaway's competitive assistant at Runway Magazine is a blunt scene-stealer whose emotional transparency translates sharply into a bitchy-yet-likable-young-career woman. Hopefully we'll see more of her...

    When Andy Sachs (Hathaway) first steps foot into the prestigious Runway building – fresh out of Northwestern university and no interest whatsoever in the couture scene – she it met by a world of rapid-fire fashion jargon, cruel stares from skinny models and sass from superiors. It is a whole world of hierarchies, codes and fancy dresses (Runway is more than "just a magazine", after all) but arguably the first thing that jumps out and grabs you is Emily Blunt as Streep's assistant Emily – the sole survivor. The first half of the 'Prada' is an assured success due to its fast-paced navigation of the fashion industry and its many colourful characters like Nigel and Emily; it sucks you in. Hathaway fully reprises 'Princess Diaries' here but it works.

    Next it regrettably initiates a process of ticking off clichéd ingredients from a standard formula: the homely-yet-likable-girl makes progress at work, she goes through the mandatory makeover moment from the gay designer and comes out stunningly pretty, her rivalries' jaws open, her boss approves. Cut to her private life, which takes a backseat in the film, but nonetheless suffers the more involved and ambitious she gets at work. The film raises questions such as, how far will she go to get what she wants? Will she conform? Will she be sucked in? Prada tiptoes around these notions for a bit but there is always the underlying message that says a woman has got to choose: love or career. Nice going on the equality front there, Hollywood. Way to perpetuate gender roles.

    Nevertheless, 'The Devil Wears Prada' is a good little diversion and for fashion buffs it must surely be heaven, or at least a petit mort, because the amount of product placement is baffling. Undoubtedly high-fashion labels such as Karl Lagerfeld and Jimmy Choo have paid good cash to be 'casually integrated' in the film. There is also a totally solid soundtrack that accompanies key scenes, such as the opening montage of Hathaway getting dressed in the morning in frumpy clothes while juxtaposed with the high-fashion models and their sleek outfits. Fun, but ultimately highly clichéd and too peppered with sexist messages to fully work.

    "That's all."

    6 out of 10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was horribly offended by this film. Andy's friends act like she's selling her soul to work at Runway, as if it's not just an occupational hazard to submit to cruel bosses here and there. The whole premise of her accepting the job in the first place is that she can then move on to enviable roles in other magazines. What the hell is wrong with that?!!! How is spending a year working your ass off some kind of spiritual sin? It doesn't make any sense.

    And she gets accused of doing to Emily what Priestly does to Tucci's character, but that's so clearly not the case. Why should Andy or anyone else sacrifice their promotion for co-workers that never made any effort to be nice to them in the first place? Ideally promotions are awarded meritocratically and why shouldn't we believe that Andy is just as qualified and deserving of her new responsibilities as Emily? Because she wasn't there as long? That's retarded people! The real world doesn't operate this way. When was the last time you gave up a promotion for some co-worker who was an asshole to you and didn't necessarily do her job as well? The basic message of this movie is that you shouldn't be ambitious, because if you are you will be punished by your friends and family--is this women really need to hear more of this bullshit? You're suppose to presume that had Andy completed her year there she would have set herself permanently on the path to crazed careerism which led to Miranda's second divorce. Oh, everyone at Runway is so unhappy. It's not worth it to be at the top of your field in fashion. I mean, it's absurd.

    Oh, and sous chef boyfriend at one point declares how they should stop pretending that he and Andy have anything in common anymore. Oh my God. You obviously had precious little in common in the first place if girlfriend + an unusually stressful year of work is enough to eviscerate all that you used to have in common. In the real world, partners go through periods when they become absorbed by intense spells and relationships survive, because in good relationships partners support the long-term goals of their sig others. How do you think doctors complete their residencies with their relationships in tact? The gratuitous fashion montages were fantastic, but Anne Hathaway is a less than formidable talent that works best when she's posing all Brunette Barbie style. I actually walked out after Andy threw her cell phone in the fountain. I figured there wouldn't be anymore eye candy post-Runway and I'd have to sit through some predictable reconciliation scene where she's apologizing to her boyfriend for having had the misguided notion that the people who loved her might enjoy watching her succeed.

    And it's just a stale, middle-of-the-road mainstream feature in a multitude of other dimensions. Save for Meryl Streep's white hot performance this movie sucks. View this movie only to witness a blatant example of how society wants to sabotage women's economic success.
An error has occured. Please try again.